MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowing the claim made by the assessee- society under section 11 of the Act. 4.4 Aggrieved by the orders of the CPC, Bangalore, the assessee preferred appeals for these three years, i.e., assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The submission of the assessee before the Ld. First Appellate Authority was that

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURE DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowing the claim made by the assessee- society under section 11 of the Act. 4.4 Aggrieved by the orders of the CPC, Bangalore, the assessee preferred appeals for these three years, i.e., assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The submission of the assessee before the Ld. First Appellate Authority was that

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowing the claim made by the assessee- society under section 11 of the Act. 4.4 Aggrieved by the orders of the CPC, Bangalore, the assessee preferred appeals for these three years, i.e., assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The submission of the assessee before the Ld. First Appellate Authority was that

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

ALL INDIA WOMENS CONFERENCE KANPUR,KANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), CIVIL LINES KANPUR

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2022-23 All India Womens Conference V. The Income Tax Officer Kanpur Ward 1(1)(1) 16/4, Mahila Park, Civil Lines Civil Lines Sarsaiya Ghat, Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aacta1200E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.06.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under The Societies Registration Act Xxi Of 1860 & Running Working Women’S Hostel At Subsidized Rate Under The Name & Style Of ‘All India Womens Conference’, Kanpur. The Assessee-Society Is Also Registered Under Section 10Ac Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society E-Filed Its Return Of Income, Declaring Nil Income. The Assessee-Society During The Year Under Consideration Had Shown Gross Receipts Of Rs.10,52,829/- And

4 of 8 under section 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is liable to be allowed. 6. That the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata has erred in law and on facts ignoring the facts that impugned Intimation under section 143(1) has been passed without following the laid down procedure as per provisions

AJAY ARORA,KANPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora

4 of the SA). The services being provided by OD, thus, are clearly multifaceted, and not limited to merely referring the non-resident clients to LI, and have overtones of consultancy and managerial services.The terms ‘managerial’ and ‘consultancy’, as indeed ‘services’, are of wide import and find inclusionin the extended definition of ‘technical services’ under Explanation 2to section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

CHARAK HELTH CARE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 139(4) of the Act. However, the assessee had filed an application for delay condonation and filed the audit report in Form No. 10B on 30.08.2022 vide Acknowledgment No. 459721360310822 when the functionality became available. Though the intimation was not available with the assessee, but it appeared that its income had been computed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

10B and at the same time alongwith Form 3CA, 3CB and Form 10CCB. The ld. AO observed that evidently the assessee had both claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act and also deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was asked to explain, why in view of the claim made under section 80IB

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

10B and at the same time alongwith Form 3CA, 3CB and Form 10CCB. The ld. AO observed that evidently the assessee had both claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act and also deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was asked to explain, why in view of the claim made under section 80IB

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

10B and at the same time alongwith Form 3CA, 3CB and Form 10CCB. The ld. AO observed that evidently the assessee had both claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act and also deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was asked to explain, why in view of the claim made under section 80IB

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

10B and at the same time alongwith Form 3CA, 3CB and Form 10CCB. The ld. AO observed that evidently the assessee had both claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act and also deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was asked to explain, why in view of the claim made under section 80IB

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

10B and at the same time alongwith Form 3CA, 3CB and Form 10CCB. The ld. AO observed that evidently the assessee had both claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act and also deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was asked to explain, why in view of the claim made under section 80IB

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

10B and at the same time alongwith Form 3CA, 3CB and Form 10CCB. The ld. AO observed that evidently the assessee had both claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act and also deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was asked to explain, why in view of the claim made under section 80IB

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

4. At the outset, the claim of the appellant that being a nodal agency, the grant\nreceived by it is governed by overriding title and hence should not be considered\nas income in its hands is self-contradictory. Perusal of the return of income filed by\nthe appellant shows that it is claiming exemption under Section